Port Moresby, 20 July 1969
Confidential
Discussions on constitutional matters between officials of the Administration and the Department are to take place shortly.1 The fact that these matters will shortly come before you prompts me to write direct to you and urge that the decisions on them be taken against the background of the need for a strong central government in order to develop the Territory economically and maintain its unity after self-government.
Measures already taken (for example on local officer salaries and on land matters) and others which need to be taken (for example on internal revenue) are bound to arouse strong and outspoken, if not widespread, opposition. They will tend to strengthen the centrifugal forces already at work. They will provide causes for the local demagogue of a kind already emerging in Bougainville (Lapun) and the Gazelle (Tammur and others). They could lead to organized resistance which will require firmness (including the use of the police in certain cases) on the part of the government.
While Australia remains responsible for administering the Territory, these problems should be manageable, though much will depend on effective presentation and the continuance of good relations between the Administration and the House of Assembly, and increasing involvement of Papuans and New Guineans in the processes of government. But the situation could well be much more difficult for the first Territory government after self-government has been attained. It is this situation which I have in mind when thinking of constitutional changes. A future government will need to be endowed with (a) the constitutional authority; (b) the governmental machinery, including information services; and (c) the armed force (police and army) to govern effectively and hold the Territory together. The government is already attending to the two latter factors. It is important that constitutional developments move in parallel.
To this end, l hope that certain general principles can be observed:
(a) a strong leadership group to be encouraged;
(b) the executive not to be too limited;
(c) a unitary rather than a federal form of government;
(d) checks on initiative of legislature in matters of legislation and finance;
(e) the powers of local and municipal governing bodies be carefully limited and defined;
(f) maximum delegation to Districts consistent with above.
There are clearly many ways in which, constitutionally, the above mentioned principles can be put into effect and I do not address myself to them in this letter beyond suggesting that there may be merit in encouraging some constitutional experiment during the period when Australia retains the ultimate legal authority.
If the above mentioned principles commend themselves their public presentation will require expert handling. Otherwise, criticism can be expected from some Members of the House of Assembly, academics and the press who are for various reasons against strong central government. Such criticism could well take the line that the government’s attitude is designed to strengthen the Australian (or official) hand against the Papuan and New Guinean hand in the period, which could be a lengthy one, before self-government.
There are many things which can be done to forestall criticism of this kind, through the encouragement of local government, through greater delegation of decision-making to districts, through greater emphasis on small scale rural development, by means of maintaining close consultative relations between the Administration and the House.
But perhaps the most effective action that can be taken is to bring about, through the Official Members, a situation in which the main principles are associated with the Committee rather than with the government or the Official Members. The authority and acceptability of the Committee’s recommendations will much depend upon the degree to which the Elected Members personally espouse them.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the Secretary of the Department.2
[NAA: A452, 1969/3605]
1 See Document 284.
2 In marginalia of 31 July, Warwick Smith wrote to Ballard: ‘Brief action only for Minister—to say he’ll take into account?’.